Log in:  

Register

Doping in XC skiing

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Tonton, Pricey_sky, King Boonen

Re: Doping in XC skiing

11 Jun 2017 17:38

An anabolic steroid is a powerful performance enhancer. But it still needs a big enough dosage to have any affect. Her biopassport showed no difference in her steroid profile, and the story was corroborated by a former police inspector working for Anti Doping Norway who went to the area to investigate.


An athlete's 'steroid profile' should show *no* anabolic steroids. None. The rules say if you want to race you can't have any anabolic steroids in your system. They don't say, 'it's okay to have a little bit', they say none. Small doses over a long time can also have an effect, as could a larger dose taken a long time before an unexpectedly sensitive test took place. That's why the rules say the permitted level is *zero*.
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 142
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

Re: Doping in XC skiing

11 Jun 2017 19:53

Blaaswix wrote:
An anabolic steroid is a powerful performance enhancer. But it still needs a big enough dosage to have any affect. Her biopassport showed no difference in her steroid profile, and the story was corroborated by a former police inspector working for Anti Doping Norway who went to the area to investigate.


An athlete's 'steroid profile' should show *no* anabolic steroids. None. The rules say if you want to race you can't have any anabolic steroids in your system. They don't say, 'it's okay to have a little bit', they say none. Small doses over a long time can also have an effect, as could a larger dose taken a long time before an unexpectedly sensitive test took place. That's why the rules say the permitted level is *zero*.


Don't think the profile responds to anabolic steroids, since it's an indirect measure. And for your information, you can have anabolic steroids in your system without having broken any rules.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,615
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

12 Jun 2017 03:52

Whichever way this is spun, either Johaug and the Norwegian ski fed are blatant cheats or there was a happy chain of coincidences producing the most improbable outcome. I wonder which one it is.
User avatar meat puppet
Member
 
Posts: 1,807
Joined: 29 May 2011 06:57

Re:

12 Jun 2017 11:29

meat puppet wrote:Whichever way this is spun, either Johaug and the Norwegian ski fed are blatant cheats or there was a happy chain of coincidences producing the most improbable outcome. I wonder which one it is.


I don't see any happy chain of coincidences here. I see a doctor with responsibility to prevent athletes taking the wrong medication and failing to do so. For there to be a chain, there should have been someone else, lets say a doctor in Norway that the doctor calls to double check and he also failed to notice the problem. Not having such a step is on the skiing federation, since it should be well known that humans make mistakes.

And I certainly don't see any cheating. Neither does it appear ADN,FIS,WADA or the IOC do either. Since only FIS appealed, and they are not arguing there was any intent to cheat at all.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,615
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Doping in XC skiing

12 Jun 2017 12:08

ToreBear wrote:
Blaaswix wrote:
An anabolic steroid is a powerful performance enhancer. But it still needs a big enough dosage to have any affect. Her biopassport showed no difference in her steroid profile, and the story was corroborated by a former police inspector working for Anti Doping Norway who went to the area to investigate.


An athlete's 'steroid profile' should show *no* anabolic steroids. None. The rules say if you want to race you can't have any anabolic steroids in your system. They don't say, 'it's okay to have a little bit', they say none. Small doses over a long time can also have an effect, as could a larger dose taken a long time before an unexpectedly sensitive test took place. That's why the rules say the permitted level is *zero*.


Don't think the profile responds to anabolic steroids, since it's an indirect measure. And for your information, you can have anabolic steroids in your system without having broken any rules.


The profile includes some anabolic steroids.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 6,262
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

12 Jun 2017 13:59

ToreBear wrote:
meat puppet wrote:Whichever way this is spun, either Johaug and the Norwegian ski fed are blatant cheats or there was a happy chain of coincidences producing the most improbable outcome. I wonder which one it is.


I don't see any happy chain of coincidences here. I see a doctor with responsibility to prevent athletes taking the wrong medication and failing to do so. For there to be a chain, there should have been someone else, lets say a doctor in Norway that the doctor calls to double check and he also failed to notice the problem. Not having such a step is on the skiing federation, since it should be well known that humans make mistakes.

And I certainly don't see any cheating. Neither does it appear ADN,FIS,WADA or the IOC do either. Since only FIS appealed, and they are not arguing there was any intent to cheat at all.


You do fail to mention though the strickt liability of the athlete to be responsible of what goes to his/her system which is a written rule of WADA. In all fairness Johaug failed her liability regardless of the acts of any stupid doctor. Let's see if CAS agrees.
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 314
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

12 Jun 2017 15:36

tyrart has seized being a 'good guy' the moment i kicked him out of my avatar choices and thereafter banned him for life from occupying the honour spot he once enjoyed :D

and i am only half-joking...

along with some wonderful antidoping work, he had been increasingly known for personalizing his 'zero' tolerance' including defaulting into some political aggressive rhetoric a person in his position should be very careful with...
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,380
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re:

12 Jun 2017 17:26

python wrote:tyrart has seized being a 'good guy' the moment i kicked him out of my avatar choices and thereafter banned him for life from occupying the honour spot he once enjoyed :D

and i am only half-joking...

along with some wonderful antidoping work, he had been increasingly known for personalizing his 'zero' tolerance' including defaulting into some political aggressive rhetoric a person in his position should be very careful with...



This. You hit the nail on the head. Tygart got a lot of praise for his involvement in the Lance Armstrong investigation. However, that case was only presented to him (or he took it upon himself with the backing of USADA), only when it became a federal (aka, financial) issue. Plus, nobody did anything until guys like Hamilton and Landis spoke out. I am sure many that spoke out (whether directly, indirectly, privately, publicly, a little bit, a lot, whatever....) had their reasons, and maybe I am wrong in saying this, but they had/have their own agendas, Tygart included. I think the politics that Tygart is trying to involve himself in...or...with, is petty and counter productive to actual anti-doping work. With the language that he is coming up with to describe the Johaug case, in particular comparing it to the case of the Russians, is not helping anyone apart those like Hajo Seppelt, **** Pound and like. But I guess as long as there is money to be had, stuff like this will always be spat out. Plus in this day and age of politics and certain amount of Russophobia, it's no surprise.

My guess is that Johaug will be let off the hook and she'll return when the original ban expires. No way is a high profile Norwegian XC skier going to miss an Olympic games because of a doping infraction.
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

Re: Doping in XC skiing

13 Jun 2017 17:58

Here's another recent Norwegian doping case http://www.vg.no/sport/vektloefting/dopingtatte-ruth-kasirye-doemt-til-to-aars-utestengelse/a/24070810/

Summary:
Norwegian weightlifter travels to Africa where she contracts malaria. She gets hospital treatment which includes meldonium. The athlete says the last day she took it was 1.1.16, the day it was added to WADAs banned list. Her doctor confirms this. Anti doping Norway thinks she took it for longer, up to 18.1.16 They also believe that she did not take it to gain a competitive advantage but she should have checked what was in her medicine.

Decision: two year suspension.
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 142
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

Re: Doping in XC skiing

14 Jun 2017 14:55

ToreBear wrote:An anabolic steroid is a powerful performance enhancer. But it still needs a big enough dosage to have any affect.
Not even you belive this. Of course steroids enhance performance in ANY amount. You've made me really laugh. Amount of lying you do to defend your Norwegian fellas is ridiculous :)

The idiot mistake was by the Doctor who didn't do his job, and the medical apparatus of the national team which didn't have any routines to prevent one human error to have such an effect. It's all in the Antidoping judgement,
which I suspect Tygart has read: https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/tema/juss/informasjon-om-therese-johaug-saken/

The mistake was both doctor and Johaug. She is responsible for what she takes, isn't she?
Kokoso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,385
Joined: 22 Apr 2012 06:45

Re: Doping in XC skiing

14 Jun 2017 15:15

Blaaswix wrote:Here's another recent Norwegian doping case http://www.vg.no/sport/vektloefting/dopingtatte-ruth-kasirye-doemt-til-to-aars-utestengelse/a/24070810/

Summary:
Norwegian weightlifter travels to Africa where she contracts malaria. She gets hospital treatment which includes meldonium. The athlete says the last day she took it was 1.1.16, the day it was added to WADAs banned list. Her doctor confirms this. Anti doping Norway thinks she took it for longer, up to 18.1.16 They also believe that she did not take it to gain a competitive advantage but she should have checked what was in her medicine.

Decision: two year suspension.

For an outsider it seems that ADNO willingly accepted all the anomalities from the doctor and athlete in the Johaug case, but expressed mistrust to the explanations by the athlete and doctor in the weightlifter case.

Looking on the pictures makes you wonder............No, it has nothing to do with race. Remember, it's the best democracy in the world.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/norway-world-s-best-democracy-we-asked-its-people-why-n720151
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re: Doping in XC skiing

14 Jun 2017 15:19

Kokoso wrote:
ToreBear wrote:An anabolic steroid is a powerful performance enhancer. But it still needs a big enough dosage to have any affect.
Not even you belive this. Of course steroids enhance performance in ANY amount. You've made me really laugh. Amount of lying you do to defend your Norwegian fellas is ridiculous :)

The idiot mistake was by the Doctor who didn't do his job, and the medical apparatus of the national team which didn't have any routines to prevent one human error to have such an effect. It's all in the Antidoping judgement,
which I suspect Tygart has read: https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/tema/juss/informasjon-om-therese-johaug-saken/

The mistake was both doctor and Johaug. She is responsible for what she takes, isn't she?


Stop being pedantic, and stop accusing people of lying. It makes you seem like a child.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,615
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

14 Jun 2017 20:29

Discgear, this judgment makes me think Johaug could be handed a two year suspension by CAS.
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 142
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

Re: Doping in XC skiing

14 Jun 2017 22:34

ToreBear wrote:
Kokoso wrote:
ToreBear wrote:An anabolic steroid is a powerful performance enhancer. But it still needs a big enough dosage to have any affect.
Not even you belive this. Of course steroids enhance performance in ANY amount. You've made me really laugh. Amount of lying you do to defend your Norwegian fellas is ridiculous :)

The idiot mistake was by the Doctor who didn't do his job, and the medical apparatus of the national team which didn't have any routines to prevent one human error to have such an effect. It's all in the Antidoping judgement,
which I suspect Tygart has read: https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/tema/juss/informasjon-om-therese-johaug-saken/

The mistake was both doctor and Johaug. She is responsible for what she takes, isn't she?


Stop being pedantic, and stop accusing people of lying. It makes you seem like a child.

Lol you've just confirmed my words, do you realize that? :D funny
Kokoso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,385
Joined: 22 Apr 2012 06:45

12 Aug 2017 11:41

August and XC? Surely not. Summer/winter crossover ethics fun:

Johaug's lawyer thinks fewer people would have booed Gatlin if they 'knew the facts'
https://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/andreidretter/Johaug-advokat-mener-Gatlin-er-misforstatt--Langt-farre-hadde-buet-om-de-kjente-faktaene-239935b.html

Well waddyaknow.
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 142
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

Re: Doping in XC skiing

12 Aug 2017 14:49

Kokoso wrote:
ToreBear wrote:An anabolic steroid is a powerful performance enhancer. But it still needs a big enough dosage to have any affect.
Not even you belive this. Of course steroids enhance performance in ANY amount. You've made me really laugh. Amount of lying you do to defend your Norwegian fellas is ridiculous :)

The idiot mistake was by the Doctor who didn't do his job, and the medical apparatus of the national team which didn't have any routines to prevent one human error to have such an effect. It's all in the Antidoping judgement,
which I suspect Tygart has read: https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/tema/juss/informasjon-om-therese-johaug-saken/

The mistake was both doctor and Johaug. She is responsible for what she takes, isn't she?



Bizarre! I was given steroid cream by my doctor for some contact- eczema caused by my skin reacting to wearing gloves all the time.

According to you and the other cultists,had I been any sort of professional athlete, I would have failed a drugs test and should be banned therefore losing my livelihood because there are no levels of steroids which don't enhance performance.

Also the idea of strict liability as enforced by WADA is in complete conflict with any idea of Human Rights or the normal concept of Natural Justice. Try justifying Alain Baxter losing his medal for using a standard Vicks nasal inhaler. Just go on and try. You can't. It is absolutely impossible to justify that punishment.

Especially when the same gang think that it's perfectly fair to allow men to run against women.
GreasyChain
New Member
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:40

12 Aug 2017 15:40

That's what TUEs are for, so that legitimate conditions can be treated. Now, not everything that can be used to treat conditions will be available under a TUE, because some substances are banned outright, but for the majority of the time, legitimate conditions can be treated with medication including banned substances subject to TUE.

The main issue in this case is abuse of the TUE system; the percentage of asthmatics in the Norwegian team has long been a topic of some discussion (the number of endurance athletes who suffer from asthma compared to the incidence of the condition in the general population is absurdly high when you consider that the condition should be a disadvantage in these competitions, hence the debate over the incidence of 'exercise-induced asthma' and the various medications for it), as has the method of administering the substances that are acceptable under the terms of TUEs.

As has also been the case with the board's focus on Team Sky and British Cycling, the attitudes of the Norwegian team and its fans has also led to a disproportionate amount of focus on them, almost as disproportionate as the amount of asthma sufferers in their XC squad compared to the general population of the country. In many cases it is more the sanctimoniousness and perceived hypocrisy of their attitudes (less so the individual athletes admittedly) that leads to this; shouting loudest about others' indiscretions while simultaneously being perceived as taking advantage of the TUE system raises the ire more than if they were just winning the races, no matter how easy they make the dominance look. Dominating the field so brutally while fingers are being pointed at easy scapegoats like the Finns and Russians doesn't help. And some of the excuses made in order to absolve them of blame on the occasions there are cracks in the veneer, they don't help either. I mean, the amount of leaps that have been taken in logic to try to absolve the Norwegian team in general, and Therese Johaug in particular, of blame for her situation have resulted in some arguments being presented that credit her with so little intelligence one wonders if she'd not rather just be called a cheat as it's less insulting.

Since Therese's problems with ulcers are documented, and the substance she took was a legitimate course of treatment for this, then unless other alternative treatments which are of equal effectiveness and without banned substances were similarly available, then a TUE should have been viable, in which case the whole sorry saga could have been avoided. Especially as it was out of season so an emergency treatment shouldn't have been necessary.

The Alain Baxter case is well documented, but I don't think you can use that as a counterbalance to strict liability in the Johaug case. The packaging clearly had a label stating it was doping, and with a crossed red circle in the universal format for "forbidden". Strict liability may have some flaws, sure, but if she was so stupid as to not recognize this sign on the packaging or even look for guidance on the medication, then was absolved of blame for not having known, then it really opens up the floodgates to all manner of "inadvertent" abuse of anti-doping legislation regardless of whether or not Johaug's actual intention was performance-enhancing, which is debatable in this instance given the comparatively weak effect of clostebol and her documented problems with the conditions the cream was apparently purchased for.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,811
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

12 Aug 2017 18:04

"Since Therese's problems with ulcers are documented, and the substance she took was a legitimate course of treatment for this, then unless other alternative treatments which are of equal effectiveness and without banned substances were similarly available, then a TUE should have been viable, in which case the whole sorry saga could have been avoided. Especially as it was out of season so an emergency treatment shouldn't have been necessary."

This was not the same problem she had before IIRC. The substance she took was not optimal. The doctor who bought it, gave it to her and cleared it, could not understand why a steroid was included in the cream. He was focused on another substance which was an antibiotic of some type.

This has nothing to do with TUEs. The doctor simply bought the wrong stuff, and gave it to her saying it was ok. Neither of them noticed the warning on the packaging.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,615
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re:

12 Aug 2017 18:26

<hogmode>
Libertine Seguros wrote:some arguments being presented that credit her with so little intelligence one wonders if she'd not rather just be called a cheat as it's less insulting.

Good post, LS.
</hogmode>
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,811
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

Re:

13 Aug 2017 11:03

Libertine Seguros wrote: I mean, the amount of leaps that have been taken in logic to try to absolve the Norwegian team in general, and Therese Johaug in particular, of blame for her situation have resulted in some arguments being presented that credit her with so little intelligence one wonders if she'd not rather just be called a cheat as it's less insulting.

:) Spot on
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GJB123, meat puppet, sworks and 22 guests

Back to top